Tardy v. Rosenstock
| Decision Date | 02 December 1918 |
| Citation | 118 Miss. 720,80 So. 1 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | TARDY ET AL v. ROSENSTOCK |
October, 1918
APPEAL from the circuit court of Bolivar county, HON. W. A. ALCORN, JR., Judge.
Suit bye Morris Rosenstock against Mrs. Fanny M. Tardy and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, certain of the defendants appeal.
The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.
Case remanded.
Owen & Roberts, for appellant.
Somerville & Somerville for appellee.
The judgment appealed from was against the several defendants; but one of them, Charles E. Farries, did not join therein and no summons for him has been issued. Counsel for appellee call our attention thereto in their brief and say that because thereof the judgment of the court below should be affirmed.
Section 43, Code of 1906, section 19 of Hemingway's Code, provides that "any one or more of the parties to a judgment or decree may appeal therefrom;" but it further provides that, if all of the parties to a judgment or decree do not join in the appeal, summons shall be issued for such as do not join therein to appear before this court and join in the appeal, and upon their failure so to do they shall lose the right thereafter to appeal.
No summons has been issued herein for Farries. Consequently, appellant is not entitled under the statute to proceed with the appeal, but we do not think the judgment of the court below should be affirmed for that reason. The proper procedure, when the statute referred to has not been observed, is either to dismiss the appeal or require the statute to be complied with before the cause is taken up for consideration by the court.
In this connection we will say that, in the event an appellant neglects to have a summons issued for other parties to the judgment appealed from who fail to join him in his appeal, there is nothing to prevent the appellee from so doing should he desire to speed the hearing of the cause on its merits.
The case will be remanded to the docket and continued, with leave to appellants to comply with the statute herein referred to within thirty days; should they fail so to do, the cause will be dismissed.
Remanded to docket.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Columbus & Greenville R. Co. v. Lee
-
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Majure
...the one made. Liles v. May, 63 So. 217; Union Motor Car Co. v. Cartledge, 97 So. 801; U. S. F. & G. Co. v. Jackson, 86 So. 456; Tardy v. Rosenstock, 80 So. 1. Richardson, of Philadelphia, for appellee. The supersedeas appeal bond was executed by the Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, o......
-
Duckworth v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., ALLIS-CHALMERS
...splitting of appeals. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. N. O. Nelson Mfg. Co., 167 Miss. 63, 146 So. 889 (1933); Tardy v. Rosenstock, 118 Miss. 720, 80 So. 1 (1918). Secs. 1156 and 1158 do not affect the present issue, but emphasize that parties summoned to join in the appeal, even if ag......
-
Ellis-Jones Drug Co. v. Coker
... ... be dismissed, as he has waived any question of jurisdiction ... Sections ... 778 and 3394, Hemingway's Code of 1927; Tardy v ... Rosenstock, 118, Miss. 720, 80 So. 1; Little v ... Cammack, 109 Miss. 753, 69 So. 594; Hudson v ... Grey, 58 Miss. 580; State v. Coahoma ... ...